texas’ public preservation survey results

Texas’ PublicPreservation Survey

Results

February 26, 2010

The Survey

• Web-based survey• 1,089 people responded

• Survey open between Jan. 15, 2009 – Feb 7, 2010• Distribution

• Press releases• Email to list servs, partners, schools, churches• Link on websites• Reminders

Demographics & Geography

•64% of Texas counties are represented

• 59% urban• 41% rural

Demographics & Geography

• 77% over 45 years

Demographics & Geography

Male

Female

Demographics & Geography

Preservation Interests

As an interested/volunteer

Through my profession or work

Preservation Interests

Which of the following best describes you?

Top 3

Preservation Interests

Top 3

Preservation Interests

Preservation Interests

Preservation Benefits

Preservation Benefits

Preservation Benefits

Top 3

Preservation Issues

Preservation Issues

Strengths: Top Five

Top 3

Weaknesses: Top Five

Bottom 3

Threats

Top 3

Threats

Open-ended responses to biggest threats include:• Local politics• Lack of planning and zoning• Lack of planning authorized for counties• Gentrification• Untrained city staff

Threats

Top 3

Open-ended responses to threatened resources include:

• Accessory buildings (garages, sheds, barns, etc.)• Brick streets and sidewalks• Collections• Dancehalls• Local businesses• Historic bridges• Native landscapes/habitats

Threats

Opportunities

Top 3

Opportunities

Open-ended responses regarding what to improve to better preserve historic and cultural resources include:

• Teach Texas history and preservation in schools• Maintain a survey and/or atlas of historic sites• Financially support good maintenance• Develop information resources on “green” historic

preservation• Grant counties planning and zoning authority

Opportunities

Top 3

Respondents shared several local tools for preservation, including:

• Generous property tax abatements• Construction waivers and Tax Increment Financing• Online database of landmarks and districts with

accompanying zoning and incentives• Development of smart code• County Historical Commission review of new

development in county• Web survey project• Partnering with local university, library, boy

scouts, etc.

Local Tools and Incentives

Respondents shared their ideas on how they could use a statewide plan:

• The plan can be a model or framework for communities that do not have the resources or expertise to develop their own plans

• It should be an educational tool in a variety of ways, including educating the general public, outlining benefits of preservation to strengthen local discussions, and serving as a central clearinghouse of information for preservation

• It should set forth consistent standards and guidelines for preservation

Using the Statewide Plan

• It needs to be implementation-focused; goals and actions need to be implementable and measurable, people at the local level need to be prepared to carry out the plan, and the plan needs to be tied to funding, grants and incentives

• It needs to encourage survey and inventory of historic and cultural resources

• It should focus on financial resources available for preservation

• It should create networks and collaborations, sharing ideas, best practices and what is working/not working for different types of communities

Using the Statewide Plan (cont.)

• To view the full survey results, including all the open-ended comments, please visit this website

• Questions or comments? Contact Tracey Silverman at 512/936-9615 or tracey.silverman@thc.state.tx.us

Looking for more?